From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6004 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2011 23:48:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 5994 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2011 23:48:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:48:22 +0000 From: "oleg.endo@t-online.de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/49263] SH Target: underutilized "TST #imm, R0" instruction Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:48:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: oleg.endo@t-online.de X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00934.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263 --- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-10 23:48:17 UTC --- Created attachment 25461 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25461 CSiBE comparisons (In reply to comment #8) > > Another combine pass to reduce size less than 0.3% on one target > would be not acceptable, I guess. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that it was just a proof of concept hack of mine, just to see whether it has any chance to work at all. I think it would be better to change/fix the behavior of the combine pass in this regard, so that it tries matching combined patterns without sophisticated transformations. I will try asking on the gcc list about that. > ~10 new patterns would be > overkill for that result, though I'm still expecting that a few > patterns of them were dominant. Yep, even if it turned out to be actually only 8 patterns in total, but still.. I haven't looked at the issue with SH4A but most likely it would add another one or two patterns... so basically ~10 :) > Could you get numbers which pattern > was used in the former option? I think it would be a bit too much checking out each individual pattern. Instead I grouped them into what they are effectively doing. While I was at it, I also added your peephole idea, and a top 10 listing of the individual files.